Manning failed four times in ANOTHER first round playoff exit(top seeded exit), but that counts for nothing.

Sure it counts, but you might consider Manning put his team in position to win the game unless there was a miracle play by Baltimore, so when one actually did happen (through NO fault of Manning's) that doesn't mean his legacy is forever tarnished because they lost the game.

That's the kind of screwed up reasoning that causes people to over rate QBs based on wins. Broncos lose, you think less of Manning.

But if Rahim Moore doesn't act like he's a high school DB with no clue and either knocks down or perhaps intercepts that Flacco bomb that shouldn't have stood a chance, maybe Manning gets another ring, and then you think he's better than you did before.

I look at a QBs skills and what value they add to a team as being much greater than the random chance of whether or not the team wins the SB. Sure, wins have value, but you act like that's the only way any QB should ever be evaluated.

I see Biz ignored my bet offer. Good call.

It was pointless to the argument being made. Also, I'm not wasting my time with that.

burnsy,

Virtually all NFL QBs are over rated based on wins, especially in the playoffs and Super Bowl. This is certainly true of Brady.

Also, people tend to forget Brady's mistakes and focus on his successes. He's won 3 SBs a decade ago, and that somehow trumps two losses since.

Think of it this way: If Brady had never been to a single Super Bowl and certainly didn't win any of them, how great would you think he is?

Yeah the pick six, fumble, OT interception, and audible into a run on third and long had nothing to do with the loss. Only reason they were in the game was special teams play.

Heres your's Biz, re this years playoff game:
Sure it counts, but you might consider Manning put his team in position to win the game unless there was a miracle play by Baltimore, so when one actually did happen (through NO fault of Manning's) that doesn't mean his legacy is forever tarnished because they lost the game.

That's the kind of screwed up reasoning that causes people to over rate QBs based on wins. Broncos lose, you think less of Manning.

But if Rahim Moore doesn't act like he's a high school DB with no clue and either knocks down or perhaps intercepts that Flacco bomb that shouldn't have stood a chance, maybe Manning gets another ring, and then you think he's better than you did before

Here is mine, re either Super Bowl vs NYG:

Sure it counts, but you might consider Brady put his team in position to win the game unless there was a miracle play by New York, so when one actually did happen (through NO fault of Brady's) that doesn't mean his legacy is forever tarnished because they lost the game.

That's the kind of screwed up reasoning that causes people to over rate QBs based on wins. Patriots lose, you think less of Brady.

But if the DB doesn't act like he's a high school DB with no clue and either knocks down or perhaps intercepts that Eli Manning pass that shouldn't have stood a chance (or the DL gets to Manning in the 5 minutes he sat in the pocket), Brady gets another ring, and then you arent talking about the 2 Super Bowls he lost.

Fair enough, but I'm not the one arguing someone is great or not based on whether they won or lost the Super Bowl (or any game for that matter).

My point is when you use TEAM success as a measure of greatness for one player, you are going to over or under rate that player based on the FACT that other people contribute to the team's success (or lack thereof).

Again, if Brady had played for the Cleveland Browns and never went to a Super Bowl but somehow produced the exact same stats otherwise, how much would your opinion of him be different?

Fair enough, but I'm not the one arguing someone is great or not based on whether they won or lost the Super Bowl (or any game for that matter).

My point is when you use TEAM success as a measure of greatness for one player, you are going to over or under rate that player based on the FACT that other people contribute to the team's success (or lack thereof).

Again, if Brady had played for the Cleveland Browns and never went to a Super Bowl but somehow produced the exact same stats otherwise, how much would your opinion of him be different?

Virtually all NFL QBs are over rated based on wins, especially in the playoffs and Super Bowl. This is certainly true of Brady.

Also, people tend to forget Brady's mistakes and focus on his successes. He's won 3 SBs a decade ago, and that somehow trumps two losses since.

Think of it this way: If Brady had never been to a single Super Bowl and certainly didn't win any of them, how great would you think he is?"

If a 8 time pro bowler, 2 time MVP, and someone who is 3rd place in QB rating for their career never been to a Super Bowl? He'd probably still be top 10 for me. Top 12 at worst. I think I ranked Marino at 7.

The QB rating argument is the only thing you mention which is actually valid. I'll grant you that one. The rest of it is meaningless as the awards are given by the same people who buy into Brady's hype.